What is Ethnobotany and why is it important?

The aim of Ethnobotany is to study how and why people use and conceptualize plants in their local environments. The two questions most asked are (1) how and in what ways people use nature and (2) how and in what ways people view nature. Ethnobotanists gather data mainly from living peoples in hopes of gathering a view of their past existence as well as an understanding of present uses of plants for food, medicine, construction materials, and tools. Ethnobotanical research can be a door into cultural realities as well as a way to understand the future of human relationships with this land we call Turtle Island, Bear's Back, and the Earth (Salmon 1999).

The historical dimensions of ethnobotany that were largely listings of plants, names, and uses play a role in contemporary approaches to traditional plant knowledge. Most past researchers did not regard what the people thought about plants as important. The situation today is that researchers would like to include conceptualizations of plants in their studies, but do not have the methods to do this. This does not criticize ethnobotany, but rather attempts to build the framework upon which new methodological approaches can be explored. The first section briefly discusses the history of the definition of ethnobotany, then moves to a discussion of the primary methods of field research. This is followed by an overview of the recent flowering of the concept of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and its influence on ethnobotanical research and methods.

Ethnobotanical Evolutions. - In 1895, at a lecture in Philadelphia, Dr. John Harshberger used the term "ethno-botany" to describe his field of inquiry, which he defined as the study of "plants used by primitive and aboriginal people." In 1896, Harshberger published the term and suggested "ethno-botany" be a field which elucidates the "cultural position of the tribes who used the plants for food, shelter or clothing" (Harshberger 1896). The term quickly began to be used and a new field was opened. Until the turn of the 20th century, ethnobotany was primarily the study of native uses of plants.

But in 1916, Robbins et al. began to introduce some new theoretical notions and methodologies. Primarily, they noted that ethnobotany is more than collecting plants and procuring native names, but is "scientific work" worthy of scientific methods of investigation. They suggested that ethnobotanists should strive to explain deep understandings of plant life and plant relationships as perceived by the indigenous peoples (Robbins et al. 1916). They also noted several questions ethnobotanists should consider when conducting field work: a) what are primitive ideas and conceptions of plant life? b) What are the effects of a given plant environment on the lives, customs, religion, thoughts, and everyday practical affairs of the people studied? c) What use do they make of the plants about them for food, for medicine, for material culture, for ceremonial purposes? d) what is the extent of their knowledge of the parts, functions, and activities of plants? e) Into what categories are plant names and words that deal with plants grouped in the language of the people studied, and what can be learned concerning the working of the folk-mind by the study of these names? (Robbins et al. 1916)

The questions raised by Robbins et al. appear similar to questions modern ethnobotanists should ask when considering TEK. Unfortunately, ethnobotanical researchers of the period did not follow their suggestions. Robbins et al. no doubt provided ethnobotanists many questions to ponder and added greatly to the theory and methodology of a fledgling field.

It was another 25 years before Volney Jones published "The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany" and attempted additional definition of the field (Jones 1941). Jones acknowledged that others before him had agreed that ethnobotany should be "concerned not only with uses of plants, but with the entire range of relations between primitive man and plant" (Jones 1941). He described man's dependency and co-existence with plants and other fields that concern themselves with similar applications. He laid the groundwork for the future evolution of ethnobotany. Although these other fields "may at times concern themselves with the relations of primitive man and plants", he stated, their foci is more with the economic use of the plant, whereas, ethnobotany " is concerned exclusively with the interrelation of primitive man and plants and takes for its sole aim the illumination of this contact" (Jones 1941).

In an important follow-up paper, "The Domain of Ethnobiology," Edward Castetter (1944) sought to further define ethnobiology, which includes ethnobotany and also to set some guidelines by which researchers should conduct their studies. The guidelines encouraged researchers to keep certain "factors" in mind when conducting field studies, including plant identification, relative abundance and availability of the plants, Indian names for the plant, purposes of use, season of collection, whether or not the plant is native to the area, the economic value, species not used in the region, and importance of the plant in the economy of the culture.

Since Harshberger, the definition of ethnobotany has changed and evolved along with the formation and evolution of the field (Jain 1987, 1989; Schultes 1972; Schultes and Reis 1995). In 1978, Richard Ford, a colleague of Jones, described a New Synthesis of ethnobotany, noting that modern ethnobotanists: "must be able to identify what plants are significant: to discover how the people of a culture classify, identify, and relate to them; and to examine how the perception of the plant world actually guides their action and concomitantly structures the floral environment" (Ford 1978). Ford felt it was important to modify Jones' definition to accommodate the changes in the field. He concluded that "Ethnobotany is the study of the direct interrelations between humans and plants" (Ford 1978). The addition of the term "direct" permitted the field to acknowledge those who were in continual contact with plants permitting them to classify, in their way, the plants and to generate cultural rules for manipulating the plants and their local environments. The deletion of the word "primitive" was to allow expansion of the field of study.

To this point ethnobotany was concerned with the folk knowledge of primarily non-western peoples. Ford deemed it important to expand the field of study to Western peoples as well, acknowledging that "Americans" also maintained folk-plant knowledge. Although ethnobotany is distinctive as an academic field of study, it maintains a multidisciplinary character in both theory and methods. In the botanical tradition, the theoretical distinctions are clear. Plants and plant uses are the focus, although ecological patterns, plant dispersals, resource utilization, and horticultural and agricultural patterns have become popular avenues of study among botanists (Bye 1976; F. Cardenal 1993; Castetter and Bell 1937; Castetter and Opler 1936; Castetter and Underhill 1935; Densmore 1928; Felger et al. 1976; Gentry 1942; Gilmore 1919; Harvard 1895, 1896; Johnston 1943a, 1943b; LeFerriére 1991; LeFerriére et al. 1991; Newberry 1887; Shreve and Wiggins 1964; Whiting 1939; Yetman et al. In press).

Among anthropologically-oriented ethnobotanists, distinctions remain. Many in this field have concentrated on discovering plant/ human interactions through indigenous symbols, epistemology, folklore, and ceremony (Bahr 1983; Bahr et al. 1974; Basauri 1927; Bourke 1892; Conklin 1954; Crosswhite 1980; Cushing 1920; Hill 1992; Mares Trias 1986; Mooney 1891; Myerhoff 1970; Opler 1938; E. Salmon 1995; Schultes and Hofmann 1992).Others concentrate on plant classifications among non-western peoples (Atran 1985; Berlin 1976, 1978, 1992; Berlin et al. 1973; Brown 1977; Clément 1995; Hays 1982, 1983; Posey 1984; Taylor 1984).

In the archaeological realm, agricultural origins and prehistoric plant use are central. Archaeoethnobotanists often rely on plant and coprolite remains, fossilized pollen, and ancient food caches to determine prehistoric plant use and relationships (Adams 1980; Ford 1985; Kaplan 1963; Lepofsky et al. 1996; Matson 1991; Minnis 1985a, 1985b, 1991; Reinhard et al. 1991; Sobolik and Gerick 1992; Wills 1988; Zingg 1940).

Ethnobotanists of the "New Synthesis," the wholistic merger of all methods and theories (Ford 1978), often rely on several theoretical avenues in order to conduct their research. They use botanical theories with those from anthropology, and often they introduce theory and methods from other fields including linguistics, pharmacology, musicology, architecture, conservation biology and many others, depending on the questions being asked by the study (Alcorn 1984; Bye 1976; Felger and Moser 1985; Ford 1978, 1983; Hunn and Selam 1990; Jones 1941; Linares and Bye 1987; Litzinger 1983; Nabhan 1985, 1991; E. Salmon 1995; Salopek 1986; Turner and Davis 1993; Winkelman 1991).

Although ethnobotany seems to be a loose composition of theory and methods, common methodologies and theory can be found. Theoretically, direct contact with the vegetation of a region is encouraged and essential in order for researchers to fully comprehend the flora of a small geographic area on which they usually focus. From close contact with the plants, ethnobotanists are able to relate local and specialized plant taxonomies and study all the physical properties of the plants. Ethnobotanists sometimes pay attention to culturally relative cognitive and symbolic properties of the plants in a region. Ecological relationships within the plant community are central to these studies as well as the larger plant/human relationship in terms of community economics. Here anthropological economic theory plays an important role in that it helps the ethnobotanist assess and quantify human requirements and their impact on a local environment (Ford 1978).